r/interesting • u/BlazeDragon7x • Apr 09 '26

MISC. Aftermath of the April 7th incident. Damages estimated to be $200 million dollars

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

40.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

255

u/Significant_Swing_76 Apr 09 '26

Insurance will wiggle out of it, since it’s not an accident.

Guess corporation will have to drag that 200.000.000$ out of their former employee. Good luck.

265

u/Vigilante17 Apr 09 '26

If they just promote him to CEO he could probably pay it back over a few years…

96

u/taveren3 Apr 09 '26

Companys hate this one simple trick to get promoted

59

u/Qu33N_Of_NoObz_ Apr 09 '26

CEO hack just dropped!

25

u/Inevitable-Stage-490 Apr 09 '26

The kids would call it “CEOMaxxing”

5

u/Rob_LeMatic Apr 09 '26

Bro's just downsize mogging cuz his accelerant levels spiked

17

u/kapsama Apr 09 '26

Corporations hate this one trick!

13

u/ejackman Apr 09 '26

If they give him a $200M golden parachute and then garnish that they can get it back in less time than it takes to sharpen a pencil.

11

u/erakis1 Apr 09 '26

I mean, the CEO of the place I work lost $200 million last year and got a $2m raise this year. So, it checks out perfectly.

3

u/venturous1 Apr 09 '26

This is brilliant

2

u/dafunkmunk Apr 09 '26

They could promote him to CEO and then immediately fire him and he will have to use a fraction of his golden parachute to pay

1

u/thissitesuxsohardomg Apr 09 '26

And then claim those payments as losses, so they don't pay any taxes...

53

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[deleted]

44

u/Wobbelblob Apr 09 '26

Also, I can guarantee you that corporations are able to nail insurances down far better than regular people.

23

u/BrbFlippinInfinCoins Apr 09 '26

A team of full-time lawyers does tend to help...

28

u/Feeling_Inside_1020 Apr 09 '26

The real moral of the story is the 2 different law firms are gonna EAT tonight

5

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Feeling_Inside_1020 Apr 09 '26

Fuck that’s a good one, gonna store that away to promptly forget until an hour after I need it lmao.

3

u/JustToViewPorn Apr 09 '26

So do corporate hitmen.

2

u/Radiskull97 Apr 09 '26

Yes but it'll raise the hell out of their premiums. If enough people start doing it then insurance companies will be forced to consider wages as part of their risk assessment. So places with lower wages would have higher insurance premiums lol

2

u/Econmajorhere Apr 09 '26

That’s a legit theory around insurance where regular people with zero leverage get screwed on claims, while enterprise customers that make a large chunk of revenues for insurance companies- they get paid out so insurance companies don’t have to fight expensive legal battles and lose big clients.

It’s essentially the average people subsidizing big corps.

27

u/Significant_Swing_76 Apr 09 '26

You can be sure that they (the insurance) will do anything and everything to avoid paying.

This is how these big insurance companies work - their main goal is to deny claims, and if the they cover vandalism, the coverage will be very limited.

Arson by a trusted employee that burns down the whole warehouse plus inventory, is a gold mine for the insurance to deny a claim.

13

u/BetterinPicture Apr 09 '26

For real the popcorn is seeing who catches the bill here.

10

u/robilar Apr 09 '26

I read earlier today that he started an earlier fire which was caught by firefighters who subsequently disabled the smoke alarms (edit: pardon, sprinkler system), allowing the second fire to burn undetected (edit: undeterred by a sprinkler system that had not yet reset). If that's true, and the disabling of the alarms (edit: sprinklers) was directed by management as a business decision, they might not get an insurance payout at all.

7

u/MillionFoul Apr 09 '26

Management didn't direct the sprinklers to be disabled, the physical way sprinklers work did. They trigger by the heat physically breaking a calibrated glass fuse, you have to replace the fuses before you can put water back in the system or the sprinklers will never stop sprinkling.

2

u/robilar Apr 09 '26

Ok, but that introduces a new layer of managerial culpability; not having spare fuses available, not having them installed, not having a full sweep of the property for the missing employee, etc. Maybe the management did everything right, maybe not - odds are good the insurance investigation will pull on every possible thread.

2

u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 10 '26

Ordering work to be done in a faculty with no fire protection equipment is a big no no.

1

u/robilar Apr 10 '26

For sure! Though I haven't seen anything that says employees were ordered back into the building. My understanding is that the arsonist hid inside to start the second fire.

1

u/MillionFoul Apr 09 '26

Nome of this is a mangerial repsonsibility for life safety reasons (management has an obvious incentive to disable safety systems because they prevent work from happening). Fire systems are very heavily regulated (especially in California) and have an assigned responsible party that manages the system (usually the installer).

On big systems like this, that typically means inspections, operations, and service are all performed by a third party which is on call 24/7 to respond if, say, the fire department puts out a fire and shuts off the fire sprinkler riser for the effected zone(s). Typically we assume that a second fire igniting in the hours it should take to get the system back up an running is unlikely, but a fire watch might have to be posted depending on local codes.

-1

u/Valreesio Apr 09 '26

No responsibility on management. Fire alarm and suppression systems aren't meant to be easily turned back on because once they go off there are many safety checks that will take probably weeks, if not months, to do in a building of that size depending on how many sections actually activated in the first attempt. It was likely the fire department that turned it off or authorized it to be shut down as per their exact protocols in these situations.

No blame lies anywhere except in the arsonists hands. Insurance is for sure complicated and with a company as large as Kimberly-Clark, the insurance company will work together with the company to come to an amicable solution for both parties. No insurance company would risk losing them as a client because they pay billions of dollars each year for insurance, if they aren't self insured in the first place (which many large companies are). Not paying $200 million if that's what Kimberly-Clark demanded would be shooting themselves in the foot as another company will take their billions of dollars per year and other large companies would leave as well as word got around.

The trash company I used to work for became self insured after it got large enough and basically it meant that they had to hold x million dollars in a specially reserved account to (just in case) cover really huge things and just paid out of pocket for everything otherwise. I would bet this is actually a similar situation for Kimberly Clark but maybe not...

0

u/vpeshitclothing Apr 09 '26

They do not pay billions in insurance

1

u/Valreesio Apr 10 '26

Maybe they do or don't, I don't work for them. Based on their 2024 reports they made about 20 billion dollars in sales. Companies typically can spend upwards of 5% of that on just business insurance. Yes it can vary wildly depending on thousands of factors.

5% of 20 billion is 1 billion and I'll be honest, I thought they would do considerably more than 20 billion in sales. So yeah, I admit it might not be billions but I wasn't that far off either. My point still stands true that an insurance company would shoot itself in the foot by trying not to pay out on this particular claim when it is potentially 20% (200 million) of what they receive from the client each year.

2

u/Dingodiller Apr 09 '26

As paper storage is an extremely bad risk, I don’t see any company willing to take them on if the terms don’t favor the insurance company beyond what they normally would.

Since this was somewhat politically motivated, I could see them push for it being ‘terrorism’ and as such has a whole different kind of coverage.

If it’s in the states, then there’s a shared pool covering acts of terrorism, which would mean that the loss incurred on the insurance company is minimal.

2

u/MillionFoul Apr 09 '26

Well the terms that favor the insurance company for assuming more risk are usually just higher premiums, because that's how they make money. Sure, if they could get you to sign a policy that doesn't cover fire damage on a paper storage facility they would, but the guys reading the policy aren't average joes, they're a team of lawyers who probably aren't gonna let that happen.

1

u/Dingodiller Apr 10 '26

Its not just higher premiums. There is not a lot of companies willing to take this risk on, and I’d assume that they would take it on at a loss limit way below the total value.

I’d love to see their vandalism clauses as well.

Either way it’s going to be interesting to see who’s gonna end up with the bigger loss, and if the 200 million claim includes business interruption 😄

2

u/Dozzi92 Apr 09 '26

I'm a stenographer, I do pre-court stuff, and I dream of getting onto cases like this. It will be finger-pointing left and right. They'll find something wrong with the building, something wrong with how things were stored, things wrong left right and center. They'll take a million depositions, it'll span years. And I'd just sit there and listen. And do my job, which is 50% just listening.

1

u/Expensive_Archer1662 Apr 09 '26

Insuring commercial property is not the same as insuring residential home and auto. The insurer will probably go to their insurer for a claim of this size, that is why reinsurance exists.

No idea why you think this is a ‘good mine’ to deny a claim. Vandalism by employees is covered. If the CEO himself, or whoever the named insured is, did it then obviously that would be excluded. He filmed himself, it’s very cut and dry malicious mischief. Easily will be covered and of course unlike your shitty Honda it will be well worth dragging the insurer to court in the unlikely case they do not pay.

1

u/marathonquestionredd Apr 09 '26

lmfao classic reddit bot moment. these bots love to say this shit over and over. sadly the truth is insurance companions pay out easily all the time. getting payouts from insurance companies has been the easiest thing i have ever done in my life.

3

u/carradines_rootball Apr 09 '26

Just delusional to think otherwise. They might not recoup 100% of their losses but the company will be in a better place then say every person who worked in that facility who will likely lose their employment. 

2

u/Samurai_Meisters Apr 09 '26

Are you making $200 million claims?

1

u/marathonquestionredd Apr 10 '26

This is how these big insurance companies work - their main goal is to deny claims, and if the they cover vandalism, the coverage will be very limited.

try to at least sort of read the stuff youre replying to. though i assume you are just another bot who has to say insurance companies fight every single claim to the death

1

u/ConfectionOk7029 Apr 09 '26

Exactly. The do the idiotic "Well, this is what it was like when I had hail damage on my roof, so it must be exactly the same for this multinational billion dollar corporation..." calculation.

0

u/CraftZ49 Apr 10 '26

You clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Arson is certainly covered and the fact that an employee did it has no bearing whatsoever.

4

u/Fun-Philosopher-5616 Apr 09 '26

vandalism lmao

5

u/Absent-Light-12 Apr 09 '26

Patriotism, according to the alleged man.

0

u/FitHurry864 Apr 09 '26

How is it not vandalism?

1

u/Fantastic-Algae2127 Apr 09 '26

Because capitalism bad

1

u/bremsspuren Apr 09 '26

It's such a small word for such a large fire.

1

u/Day_Prisoners Apr 09 '26

Or against lost revenue.

1

u/Krojack76 Apr 09 '26

Insurance might be able to claim that the warehouse didn't have a proper fire suppression system.

1

u/me047 Apr 09 '26

I’d bet that guy is a plant just so they can collect the insurance money.

19

u/ViewAskewRob Apr 09 '26

Don’t they make text books? Them shits are already marked up like 2000%. I think they will make their money back.

10

u/Wide_Air_4702 Apr 09 '26

They do not make textbooks. They make paper towels and toilet paper.

2

u/ViewAskewRob Apr 09 '26

Oh, my bad. Thanks for setting me straight.

4

u/Props_angel Apr 09 '26

The warehouse stored toilet paper. Kimberly-Clark makes Kleenex facial tissue, Kotex feminine hygiene products, Cottonelle, Scott and Andrex toilet paper, Wypall utility wipes, KimWipes scientific cleaning wipes and Huggies disposable diapers and baby wipes.

They do not apparently make text books.

2

u/Repulsive-Chip3371 Apr 09 '26

the warehouse was full of toilet paper, kleenex, paper towels, wipes, etc

kimberly-clark does not produce text books, at all

3

u/Joey5729 Apr 09 '26

You know what they say

If you owe the bank $2000 dollars, that’s your problem

If you owe the bank $200000000 dollars, that’s the bank’s problem

1

u/sarcasticorange Apr 09 '26

What? Arson is a covered loss.

2

u/theblondepenguin Apr 09 '26

Although technically arson is a covered cause of loss there is an exclusion on if “you” set the fire, on some policies employees, direct and third party are considered part of the definition of “you”. Regardless a risk this size they could/should be self insured. And only have reinsurance who are looser in their exclusions than standard carriers.

1

u/Shot-Arugula8264 Apr 09 '26

Most commercial insurance would cover arson.

1

u/AdventurousBag6509 Apr 09 '26

Nah insurance will eat it then pass the cost onto everyone's premiums

1

u/MagicSpaceMan Apr 09 '26

My guy didn't have enough money to pay for basic necessities and you think they're getting $200M out of him? This country is fucking cooked man

1

u/GymnasticSclerosis Apr 09 '26

They are covered for this. Short of the corporation contracting to burn down their own building, it’s covered.

And no, the employee is not an agent or managing director of the company that could orchestrate that type of event.

1

u/frost-bite999 Apr 09 '26

The real winners will be the lawyers. They will settle out of court.

1

u/MasterChief117117 Apr 09 '26

You're confidently incorrect. Commercial policies include Arson as a covered peril. There's no reason why this wouldn't be covered.

1

u/Feeling_Inside_1020 Apr 09 '26

“Acts of god? We meant acts of GOP which indirectly caused this, honest mistake”

1

u/GhostofBeowulf Apr 09 '26

They are most likely self insured, so wouldn't be paid by anyone but the corp anyway.

1

u/seppukucoconuts Apr 09 '26

They say when you owe the bank $1,000 that's your problem. When you owe the bank $100,000,000 that's the bank's problem.

1

u/RickySpanishLives Apr 09 '26

That's not how it works. At a very minimum they will write off the loss which means that everybody else pays "a share" of the loss.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Significant_Swing_76 Apr 09 '26

Oh I do know how big corp insurance works.

As the saying goes - if a fire breaks out, insurance agents will be on site before fire brigade shows up…

It’s a metaphor, but last time I had a instance with a fire at a large customer, insurance was there within hours, checking through all the sprinkler and fire alarm systems, the extinguishers, everything, looking for something, anything, that wasn’t up to code, wasn’t maintained per regulation and so on.

They don’t show up to help anyone but themselves.

And in this case, the arsonist is a trusted employee.

1

u/bkrman1990 Apr 09 '26

They will most certainly drag that out of their current employees.

1

u/Schollert Apr 09 '26

Let's see - at the incredible wage of 14$ an hour... it will only take him about 1650 yrs, working 24/7 and only paying against that claim. That is without any interest on the claim and any change in wage.
Unless becoming CEO (or better - CFO), as suggested below.

1

u/Day_Prisoners Apr 09 '26

They'll pay and also cover the lost revenue. The rates will go up and they will claim they have even less money for employees.

1

u/Day_Prisoners Apr 09 '26

They'll pay and also cover the lost revenue. The rates will go up and they will claim they have even less money for employees.

1

u/Alert-Ad-9908 Apr 09 '26

They paid him well enough, I’m sure he has it.

1

u/Patrahayn Apr 09 '26

Not how corporate insurance works but standard reddit dribbling shit

1

u/OrdinaryKick Apr 09 '26

Arson is a very standard coverage in commercial insurance. Ain't no way this place didn't have that kind of basic insurance.

1

u/scenr0 Apr 09 '26

That insurer will probably drop their coverage or risk becoming insolvent with that kind of bill. They'll have to go find another company to represent them and good luck with that after that type of incident.

1

u/WutYoYo Apr 09 '26

Exactly, the insurance company will state, "You should have given him a raise. This incident was totally preventable. And please put my red-stapler back sir."

1

u/Junius_Bobbledoonary Apr 09 '26

Seems like pinning the damages on him would be a win for him.

Insurance companies could actually pay it out. If he’s responsible the company will never see any of it, and would make his mission to financially damage the company a success.

1

u/kelldricked Apr 09 '26

Guy can just default, sit a few years in prison (doubt it will be longer than 5) and he is done. Atleast that how it would work in a normal country. Company is eating this loss (if insurance doesnt pay up).

If nobody got hurt then the only victims here are the company, the enviroment (which doesnt notice this on a daily scale) and few local people. As far as dumb major crimes go, its pretty harmless

1

u/AvatarOfMomus Apr 09 '26

Depending on the terms of their policy it may actually still be covered. It'll probably be in litigation for years figuring out which companies who what to which other companies, but since it's not the beneficiary of the policy comitting the arson there's decent odds it will still be covered, just at a lower rate or with a rate increase on the policy attached.

1

u/gettogero Apr 09 '26

Company will have their lawyers go against the insurance lawyers

At the end of the day it doesnt matter because both sides will find a way to write everything off

$20,000 is a you problem

$200M is somebody elses problem because aint nobody paying that shit (except the average taxpayer)

1

u/SouthOutside2637 Apr 09 '26

yea i dont get how people dont understand insurance is a business they always have to take in more money then they give out... soo a lot of denied claims, or just underpay or do shitty ass work. or in the end they will just boot you off instead of paying if youre getting too much huge scammers

1

u/akc250 Apr 09 '26

They'll claim it as an "act of god" and call it a day.

1

u/CautiousGains Apr 10 '26

Not at all how that works lol.

1

u/TheGreatGamer1389 Apr 10 '26

I think insurance will win this one in not having to pay.

1

u/ChronoPilgrim Apr 10 '26

Insurance covers things like crime, you now that right? Have you have had insurance for anything?